No, the purpose of the organization is to debunk pseudoscience.
So the whole million dollars thing is just a side show... I see...
If you claim something is true, prove it
Eh I'm not claiming anything is true, or untrue either. In fact I don't really care if there are paranormal powers in the world, I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with that question. All I'm saying is the Randi foundation cannot be pointed to as solid evidence that such powers and-or abilities don't exist, since discovery of such powers and abilities would cost them a cool million. The first time.
I'm relatively certain btw, that there isn't any such thing as a legitmate paranormal.
Based on what criteria? What scientific evidence? Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Two centuries ago, would you have been relatively certain that radio waves didn't exist?
I dunno, I seem to have hit a nerve here, I won't repeat myself any further. I have yet to hear any transcripts from within the foundation to support or deny my hypothesis, but until I do, I still maintain that they have a strong incentive never to pay, and this remains an important factor to consider.
If you can't accept the Randi foundation as fair and unbiased in testing the paranormal, what alternatives do you think are better?
I'm not at all sure, but I reckon something not financially motivated would be a good start.
that wouldn't really change much for them,
No, I don't really see it. If one person comes in and claims the million with a solid esp power, everyone else with the same power or similar would land on them and they would have to give out a whole lot more millions. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time that financial considerations have held back valuable information.
It does not belong to "james randi", it belongs to the organization which is a non-profit.
Yes, and I might be mistaken, but the sole and whole purpose of this organisation, from the site at least, is to hand a million dollars to the person that can demonstrate paranormal powers. The foundation employs at least one person, probably quite a few, all of whom would be out of a job if the tests are ever passed, and the foundation as a whole would cease to exist, probably. Also being a non profit, it can receive tax deductable donations. None of which makes me any more confident in them have a real interest in ever proving that someone has paranormal powers.
It probably only seems that way because there isn't any such thing as a legitimate paranormal.
Well, I'm not qualified to comment on this myself, and I'm not sure you are either. As someone who largely adheres to science and the scientific method, I prefer only to make definitive statements about things I am relatively certain of.
Where's the box I check off on my Income Tax form to eliminate funding to government-funded Science consortia?
Wow. If you want to cease paying your taxes, please go ahead and be my guest.
Do YOU have tenure? Where are you published??
wut
It disturbs you that these kids in Kansas aren't getting the 'science education' you feel is necessary, eh?
It disturbs me that these wretched parasites with nothing better than a smattering of charisma are trying to tear at the foundations of the science that brought you such joys as television and penecillin. Anyway, you fucked it up, if I was you I would have tackled the whole "no questioning" thing and thrown it back in my face by holding up slashdot as a sterling example of the hive mind. Also another few areas, but I'll leave you to work them out yourself.
"Mutually agreed upon" means that neither side can force the other side into doing or saying something that they don't want to, and that if no agreement can be reached, the application process is terminated, with no blame or fault attributed to either side.
So essentially what they are saying is that if the applicants can't agree to their conditions, no test will proceed. Which is what I was saying they were saying. Besides you didn't respond to my second point which was that the Randi foundation has a great deal of motivation to never hand over the loot. Don't think I'm in favour of the looney tunes, I'm not, I just can't accept the foundation as being the definitive last word in fair and unbiased testing of the paranormal.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I agree with you, I'm just saying that the Randi foundation cannot be held as an unbiased group by any stretch of the imagination. In fact they have a powerful vested interest in never handing out their million. Mind you, some of the applicants do provide a good deal of comic relief... heres one beauty from the site, he was also talking about "lightning a tree".
You owe me a million dollars: 2 million.
1: for the itching you got when I first demonstrated possessors exits.
2: for the demonstration with two independent witnesses who verifyed it, and hopefully will work with your demonstration checker.
Calling the police and reporting you for fraud is a step I could take. The contract I signed did not have three wittnesses, so you dont believe I signed it, so it is invalid.
John N. Maguire III and the gosts
send for our free religion
Hrm, something smells fishy about the Randi foundation... from the linked site:
No one has ever taken the formal test, as one must first pass the preliminary test.
Apparently they can arbitrarily set rules and conditions for the preliminary test which most people refuse for some reason. Also, it is worth noting that should the Randi foundation ever actually have to pay the million, they would cease to exist. Just a couple of points to consider...
Intelligent design and creationism (one and the same, folks, don't even bother trying to debate that one with me, you will lose, and badly) are nothing but the fronts for strutting demagogues, evangelists and fundamentalist religious groups to extend and consolidate their own power. Obviously enough they are going after the groups with the most impressionable minds, the young, also one of the weakest groups. This contemptable strategy has been mirrored throughout history by abusive groups and the leaders of every religious organisation.
Anytime I hear someone start talking about ID or similar, I don't bother debating the relative truths of these ideas versus science, because thats not what you are really debating. Instead, I start listing off the methodologies used by dominance groups and cults to control their brainwashed servants. Because that gets to the heart of the matter, right quick. So seriously folks, don't waste your time debating with the fundamentalists; thats not what they are talking about anyway. Just list off the following...
Identifying Marks of an Exploitive, Abusive Group
Exploitive, Abusive Groups:
* use abusive, manipulative methods to attract and retain members
* require unquestioning submission to the leadership
* instill the notion that nowhere else will you find as accurate an understanding of "the truth"
Four main characteristics:
1. ISOLATION (control of information; encourages members to devote large amounts of time to the group and to socialize only with group members)
2. NON-THINKING (members don't study and come to understand on their own; avoidance of thoughts that are contrary to the group's beliefs)
3. ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE (questioning, doubt and dissent are strongly discouraged)
4. GIVING EXCESSIVELY (tithes and/or offerings/contributions are required to be given to the group)
Other main characteristics:
1. Focused on a Living Leader (who often lives in luxury and is not accountable to anyone; members are devoted to this person who they believe speaks for God)
2. Exhorted to Strive for Perfection
3. Their Doctrine is Considered to be the Ultimate Truth Beyond Questioning (to question is to "come under the influence of Satan")
4. No Gray Areas (the group has all the answers to the questions, which they receive from the leader who has all the answers; everything is either right or wrong, "black or white."
5. Legalism and Control (a member's life is controlled by policies and procedures originating with the leadership)
6. Conformity to established practices and beliefs (uses fear, intimidation and guilt)
7. A Gap between the picture projected to the general public and the inner reality.
8. Preoccupied with Bringing in New Members
9. Those Outside the Group are Regarded as Less Enlightened (most often they are screened before being allowed to attend services)
10. Deceptive Fundraising Techniques (members and public assume contributions go to social causes, while most of money goes to the leader and expansion of the group)
11. Distinct Hierarchy with the Group (everyone has his or her place)
12. Secrecy (there is an inner truth and outer truth; a gap between what is projected to the general public and the inner reality known only to the members)
13. A System of Merits ("works-righteousness" orientation; heavy use and much distortion of passages from the Old Testament, the epistles, and Revelation;
14. Perceived Persecution (one of their hallmarks)
15. Increasing Loss of Freedom for a Member (the demands of the group/leader destroy any other relationships or personal growth, and destroy freedom in every significant sense)
Microsoft not selling to people that use Open Source?
Who cares, you can sell or not sell to whoever you like. As long as you have the goods, you can paint yourself blue and dance a naked mambo on them for all the law cares. No one has a right to buy privately owned goods, and they never will.
In that sense, you are correct that life is just "an elaborate pile of goo".
Whoa there, thats a bold statement indeed. I have objections to in on a moral level and a scientific level. First off, I should say I am a strong proponent of the rational; I think people advocating ID and creationism should be lashed about the head and face with a fossil for a while. But on a moral level reducing people to piles of mobile meaty goo opens the door to all sorts of unpleasantness.
Its a bit like saying someone "is" gay. Its a fundamentally flawed assertion, like saying someone "is" an exhibitionist, but besides that, it leaves the way open for the next fascist leader or bible thumping self proclaimed prophet to target people based on genes which may or may not influence sexuality, but which in any case are certainly not the last word in what turns a person on. Materialism in that sense is very wrong; you would idly throw a chair out if you don't like the colour, why not do the same to people since there is no real difference between the two?
Secondly, only a heartbeat ago in human history, radio waves and rocket ships were witchcraft and alchemy. What we actually know about ourselves and the nature of the universe in contrast to the whole that could possibly be known, is essentially nothing. You heard me right, we're only a hop skip and a jump away from the mud huts and hunter gatherer society, so lets not fool ourselves into thinking we have any sort of a grasp on reality. In the light of that, discounting the existence of the soul would be the highest form of folly.
Oh and by the way, if you think you have no soul, what the hell are you doing wasting your precious time on slashdot? You only have a finite number of seconds remaining; make the most of them, you big quantum bucket of dice you!
And nets, if you're badly stuck, netting with barbs at the thread crosses will slow down or incapacitate a good few zombies and let you make good your escape.
Re:Fool Proof Zombie Survival Plan
on
How Zombies Work
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Actually I whiled away an hour or two devising a zombie combat kit there last month. Basically you need to protect yourself from bites, mob attacks, and not much else, and destroy the brain. Assuming a near infinite number of zombies, high tech solutions will usually fail, meaning ammo runs out and equipment jams.
The best weapons to defeat zombies in close combat would be punch knives of some kind (similar to these, but with the guard across the front or even a full hand fencing guard) although the jury is out as to whether one or two straight spikes for penetration and ease of withdrawal would be better than a maximum damage broad bladed knife, with guaranteed brain destruction.
The method of use for these blades would be straight punches, head or eye height, in and out. A single person could take out a zombie a second with a couple of these. I might also recommend an oil soaked sheath to keep it lubricated. Speaking of oil, mobility is a factor, so some sort of loose link mail of ceramic or other light material would be good. This could then be oiled up to provide less traction for the zombies' gripping hands. What we're really talking about here is human bites, so even stff leather could do the job fairly well.
Full face coverage would be important, and a locking mechanism under the jaw to prevent the zombies ripping off the helmet, with high shoulder neck guards to prevent them gripping under the neck.
Its very hard to completely destroy a brain inside a skull at any range without guns or crossbows of some sort, so instead I would advise letting the zombies come to you. Rig up a corridor with a hinged floor going to a quicklime pit or even a sheer Y drop, to trap the undead in the pit, then bait them in straight and close the door behind them. Both of these can be done manually and with very limited technical ability. Once trapped, either pour in more quicklime or spear the trapped zombies with a spike. Once completed, rinse and repeat, either disposing of the corpses over the wall or by cremation. At a rate of a thousand zombies a day, you can clear out a city of a half million undead in just over a year.
For forays and travelling, groups would of course be advisable, trained in back to back or three corner fighting methods, to prevent individuals being surrounded. For larger scale incursions, Roman legion tactics would be best, shields and short blades or punch knives.
Science isn't anti anything. Science is the process by which we try to understand the universe. Calling it anti something or other displays a profound misconception of what it actually is.
A lot of scientific beliefs
There are no beliefs in science. There are theories and hypotheses which are tested and held to be the best model available until something else comes along.
You're doing the world of the rational more harm than good.
The U.S. survived a pretty terrible depression (indeed, people even call it the Great Depression) without resorting to fascism as Germany and Italy did.
The conditions for the economic turmoil in Germany were caused directly by extremely punitive conditions laid down by the allied powers after world war one in the treaty of Versailles, and indirectly from the damage caused by that war. America suffered neither of these conditions, and had no real enemy to rally against, unlike the German people. So lets save the holier than thou for another situation eh?
those wonderful bastions of free speech, the French,
Oh you mean the same French that gave you this? Man am I ever sick of americans that drank the kool aid of propaganda and turned all anti-French when they refused to support you in an illegal invasion. Its the herd mentality gone wild. And you can say what you like about that was then and this is now, but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
You can't continue punishing people for mistakes they haven't commited forever.
Indeed, couldn't have put it better myself. In fact the attitude of ongoing national punishment led directly and in no uncertain terms to world war two, just google for the treaty of Versailles and the Weimar republic.
You know, if all the root servers went down, it wouldn't be the end of the internet.
I know, thats my point. There's no need for all this public fuss at all. But to paraphrase Galileo, and yet it moves. Diplomats first, politicians second, are making an issue of it, and I'm telling you why. However, if they wanted to take full control of the internet, this would be the first step.
That's an interesting conspiracy theory. Here's another one:
Hahahahah, you linked to the DDOS attack on the root servers. As if any sovereign nation would need to resort to that. What nations do is what they are doing. You really shouldn't have posted AC, I'd have modded you up funny, if I hadn't already posted.
not because shooting make-believe Nazis is "glorifying the Third Reich", but because you saw some swastikas while doing so.
In the game, the nazis were depicted as having vastly superior technology, far advanced from the tech of the time, and were tremendously strong. I don't honestly think the game should have been banned, but I do see the reasoning behind it.
Perhaps it's exactly the opposite.
Aaaaand this is why the rest of the world loves americans so much right now.
I'd trust the answers from a culture that has so far succeeded more than from one that has failed.
Ever hear the saying that I'd rather trust a man who has tried, failed and learned from his mistakes, than one who has never failed at all? The reason for this is that when things go wrong again (and they will), the guy who failed will know what to do next time round. The other guy won't. Not to point any fingers, but there does seem to be a strong theocratic tide surging through american politics right now...
There is very little risk of a new resurgence of Nazi power,
Actually neo-nazism is on the rise in Germany and Austria, partially due to the influx of immigrants from Turkey and the Middle East.
that risk is also increased by training the public to accept and even defend government restrictions on political speech.
So tell me, what is the US position on Al-Queada rallies within its borders? Is burning the flag still a crime? So much has been outlawed over there lately its hard to keep track. And lets say I release a reasoned, well thought out political pamphlet supporting the 9-11 attacks. What is your opinion on governmental censorship there?
So, lets talk genocide. No, really, pull up a chair and pour a cup. Genocide has happened many times in history, one conqueror or another going back to Rome and Egypt ordering the slaughter of all members of a particular tribe. Why is everyone so upset about the Nazis? Is it the scale of it? Not really... What about the very fact of it? Well it's bad, but no different than most other conquering races. So what then?
Its the way that modern industrial techniques and corporate efficiency were applied to murder by the MILLION relatively blameless people. Numbered, signed, stamped and sealed. Factories were built for the tidy slughter and killing of vast numbers of people, who only a few years before were happily productive members of society. Its the picture of Dorian Grey for Europe, the reminder that civilisation is only skin deep. And Europe will never, ever let an atrocity like that happen again within its control. These stark facts ecape many americans, who blindly burble about freedom of speech and constitutional rights, never ever really knowing the truth of what went on behind the concrete walls in rural Germany. Damn fucking right it's glorification is banned, you fuckwits.
I've seen this rubbish mirrored so often around here I have almost given up, but what the hell, I will make one concerted effort to put it away. I'll just point out the parts where you are wrong, and you can look up the relevant posts on earlier discussions on this subject yourself.
It was created with US tax money.
Incorrect.
It was created for Americans and Europe to protect themselves from attack.
Incorrect, as it is today.
we paid for it.
Incorrect.
So at the end of the day, we own it.
Incorrect.
I'm writing to my senator and demanding that we don't loose it.
Okay wow, this is wrong on several levels, technically not realistic, and unless you happen to own a major corporation, futile. And spelt wrong.
I would guess that would last about 18 hours. then they would all come back.
Given your ability to get the present wrong, my faith in your fortune telling abilities is less than solid. How does this stuff get modded up? Even true patriots (tm) must realise this is factually incorrect rhetoric from some boob that actually believes the freedom of speech crap for defence of the internet on the american news. Well probably not but I don't give a rats about moderation either way, despite which I have karma to burn and burn and burn...
Anyway, typically enough you have missed the point of these whole shenanigans. I posted this earlier, but I'll probably end up reposting it a few times. Sigh.
Here's whats really going on. The US probably, as a part of trade talks or talks over military matters, mentioned to various groups, including the EU (forget the UN, thats an arena, not an entity, its like blaming the whitehouse lawn for the actions of Bush), that their internet is looking mighty fragile, and whoops, wouldn't it be a shame if someone accidentally knocked it over, as a leverage tool. So, after going away and pondering their options, aforementioned governments tell the US to go hump a pineapple, and set up their own redundant system. That they are doing it publicly (no need to) should tell any observer all they need to know about what's really going on.
Don't think you get to see every power struggle displayed on the evening news. 99% of what counts is never seen, but may be readily deduced.
So what to stop the U.N. from using the internet as a way to control other countries?
Lets swap the N with an S there, and maybe you might see the problem that other countries have.
The role the US plays isn't anything a court cannot fix if the powers are ever abused.
Whose courts? And why should US courts have any say over what happens in other nations?
What would the main benefit of letting the UN or EU control it over the US?
Here's whats really going on. The US probably, as a part of trade talks or talks over military matters, mentioned to various groups, including the EU (forget the UN, thats an arena, not an entity, its like blaming the whitehouse lawn for the actions of Bush), that their internet is looking mighty fragile, and whoops, wouldn't it be a shame if someone accidentally knocked it over, as a leverage tool. So, after going away and pondering their options, aforementioned governments tell the US to go hump a pineapple, and set up their own redundant system. That they are doing it publicly (no need to) should tell any observer all they need to know about what's really going on.
Don't think you get to see every power struggle displayed on the evening news. 99% of what counts is never seen, but may be readily deduced.
Actually, I can't persuade myself that space is useful in any serious way for any kind of manufacturing.
I think space will be useful for manufacturing, and indeed will ultimately replace any kind of planet-based manufacturing. Think about it, to manufacture, you need two things, materials and energy, two things which are in abundance in space. If someone built a general purpose factory relatively close to the sun, to use that vast nuclear furnace, and supplied it with materials from asteroids, it opens the doors for macroengineering projects on a scale undreamt of, at a fairly reasonable cost.
Essentially infinite resources for the taking, and essentially infinite energy being pumped out around the clock? I don't see how that wouldn't pay for itself in the first year. Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate that there are significant issues that would have to be addressed first, such as how to get your manufactured goods to market, and setting up the mining and resource location infrastructure first, but to reach these goals we need more exploration and experimentation.
What this kind of station or stations would do very effectively would be to produce space based resources in enormous quantites. You want a fleet of spacecraft? We'll have that for you in 12 months, sir, and all it will cost is the lease on our robotic mining fleet, pay for station staff, and a bit on the top. Don't have a mining fleet? We'll churn one out in about three weeks. These are the kind of projects which are essentially impossible, now or ever, from earth.
Hell, we could construct a functioning death star if it took our fancy.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the purpose of the organization is to debunk pseudoscience.
So the whole million dollars thing is just a side show... I see...
If you claim something is true, prove it
Eh I'm not claiming anything is true, or untrue either. In fact I don't really care if there are paranormal powers in the world, I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with that question. All I'm saying is the Randi foundation cannot be pointed to as solid evidence that such powers and-or abilities don't exist, since discovery of such powers and abilities would cost them a cool million. The first time.
I'm relatively certain btw, that there isn't any such thing as a legitmate paranormal.
Based on what criteria? What scientific evidence? Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Two centuries ago, would you have been relatively certain that radio waves didn't exist?
I dunno, I seem to have hit a nerve here, I won't repeat myself any further. I have yet to hear any transcripts from within the foundation to support or deny my hypothesis, but until I do, I still maintain that they have a strong incentive never to pay, and this remains an important factor to consider.
If you can't accept the Randi foundation as fair and unbiased in testing the paranormal, what alternatives do you think are better?
I'm not at all sure, but I reckon something not financially motivated would be a good start.
that wouldn't really change much for them,
No, I don't really see it. If one person comes in and claims the million with a solid esp power, everyone else with the same power or similar would land on them and they would have to give out a whole lot more millions. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time that financial considerations have held back valuable information.
It does not belong to "james randi", it belongs to the organization which is a non-profit.
Yes, and I might be mistaken, but the sole and whole purpose of this organisation, from the site at least, is to hand a million dollars to the person that can demonstrate paranormal powers. The foundation employs at least one person, probably quite a few, all of whom would be out of a job if the tests are ever passed, and the foundation as a whole would cease to exist, probably. Also being a non profit, it can receive tax deductable donations. None of which makes me any more confident in them have a real interest in ever proving that someone has paranormal powers.
It probably only seems that way because there isn't any such thing as a legitimate paranormal.
Well, I'm not qualified to comment on this myself, and I'm not sure you are either. As someone who largely adheres to science and the scientific method, I prefer only to make definitive statements about things I am relatively certain of.
Where's the box I check off on my Income Tax form to eliminate funding to government-funded Science consortia?
Wow. If you want to cease paying your taxes, please go ahead and be my guest.
Do YOU have tenure? Where are you published??
wut
It disturbs you that these kids in Kansas aren't getting the 'science education' you feel is necessary, eh?
It disturbs me that these wretched parasites with nothing better than a smattering of charisma are trying to tear at the foundations of the science that brought you such joys as television and penecillin. Anyway, you fucked it up, if I was you I would have tackled the whole "no questioning" thing and thrown it back in my face by holding up slashdot as a sterling example of the hive mind. Also another few areas, but I'll leave you to work them out yourself.
Ah yes, thats the part I was looking for...
"Mutually agreed upon" means that neither side can force the other side into doing or saying something that they don't want to, and that if no agreement can be reached, the application process is terminated, with no blame or fault attributed to either side.
So essentially what they are saying is that if the applicants can't agree to their conditions, no test will proceed. Which is what I was saying they were saying. Besides you didn't respond to my second point which was that the Randi foundation has a great deal of motivation to never hand over the loot. Don't think I'm in favour of the looney tunes, I'm not, I just can't accept the foundation as being the definitive last word in fair and unbiased testing of the paranormal.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I agree with you, I'm just saying that the Randi foundation cannot be held as an unbiased group by any stretch of the imagination. In fact they have a powerful vested interest in never handing out their million. Mind you, some of the applicants do provide a good deal of comic relief... heres one beauty from the site, he was also talking about "lightning a tree".
You owe me a million dollars: 2 million.
1: for the itching you got when I first demonstrated possessors exits.
2: for the demonstration with two independent witnesses who verifyed it, and hopefully will work with your demonstration checker.
Calling the police and reporting you for fraud is a step I could take. The contract I signed did not have three wittnesses, so you dont believe I signed it, so it is invalid.
John N. Maguire III and the gosts
send for our free religion
Hrm, something smells fishy about the Randi foundation... from the linked site:
No one has ever taken the formal test, as one must first pass the preliminary test.
Apparently they can arbitrarily set rules and conditions for the preliminary test which most people refuse for some reason. Also, it is worth noting that should the Randi foundation ever actually have to pay the million, they would cease to exist. Just a couple of points to consider...
Intelligent design and creationism (one and the same, folks, don't even bother trying to debate that one with me, you will lose, and badly) are nothing but the fronts for strutting demagogues, evangelists and fundamentalist religious groups to extend and consolidate their own power. Obviously enough they are going after the groups with the most impressionable minds, the young, also one of the weakest groups. This contemptable strategy has been mirrored throughout history by abusive groups and the leaders of every religious organisation.
Anytime I hear someone start talking about ID or similar, I don't bother debating the relative truths of these ideas versus science, because thats not what you are really debating. Instead, I start listing off the methodologies used by dominance groups and cults to control their brainwashed servants. Because that gets to the heart of the matter, right quick. So seriously folks, don't waste your time debating with the fundamentalists; thats not what they are talking about anyway. Just list off the following...
Identifying Marks of an Exploitive, Abusive Group
Exploitive, Abusive Groups: * use abusive, manipulative methods to attract and retain members * require unquestioning submission to the leadership * instill the notion that nowhere else will you find as accurate an understanding of "the truth" Four main characteristics:
1. ISOLATION (control of information; encourages members to devote large amounts of time to the group and to socialize only with group members)
2. NON-THINKING (members don't study and come to understand on their own; avoidance of thoughts that are contrary to the group's beliefs)
3. ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE (questioning, doubt and dissent are strongly discouraged)
4. GIVING EXCESSIVELY (tithes and/or offerings/contributions are required to be given to the group)
Other main characteristics:
1. Focused on a Living Leader (who often lives in luxury and is not accountable to anyone; members are devoted to this person who they believe speaks for God)
2. Exhorted to Strive for Perfection
3. Their Doctrine is Considered to be the Ultimate Truth Beyond Questioning (to question is to "come under the influence of Satan")
4. No Gray Areas (the group has all the answers to the questions, which they receive from the leader who has all the answers; everything is either right or wrong, "black or white."
5. Legalism and Control (a member's life is controlled by policies and procedures originating with the leadership)
6. Conformity to established practices and beliefs (uses fear, intimidation and guilt)
7. A Gap between the picture projected to the general public and the inner reality.
8. Preoccupied with Bringing in New Members
9. Those Outside the Group are Regarded as Less Enlightened (most often they are screened before being allowed to attend services)
10. Deceptive Fundraising Techniques (members and public assume contributions go to social causes, while most of money goes to the leader and expansion of the group)
11. Distinct Hierarchy with the Group (everyone has his or her place)
12. Secrecy (there is an inner truth and outer truth; a gap between what is projected to the general public and the inner reality known only to the members)
13. A System of Merits ("works-righteousness" orientation; heavy use and much distortion of passages from the Old Testament, the epistles, and Revelation;
14. Perceived Persecution (one of their hallmarks)
15. Increasing Loss of Freedom for a Member (the demands of the group/leader destroy any other relationships or personal growth, and destroy freedom in every significant sense)
Microsoft not selling to people that use Open Source?
Who cares, you can sell or not sell to whoever you like. As long as you have the goods, you can paint yourself blue and dance a naked mambo on them for all the law cares. No one has a right to buy privately owned goods, and they never will.
In that sense, you are correct that life is just "an elaborate pile of goo".
Whoa there, thats a bold statement indeed. I have objections to in on a moral level and a scientific level. First off, I should say I am a strong proponent of the rational; I think people advocating ID and creationism should be lashed about the head and face with a fossil for a while. But on a moral level reducing people to piles of mobile meaty goo opens the door to all sorts of unpleasantness.
Its a bit like saying someone "is" gay. Its a fundamentally flawed assertion, like saying someone "is" an exhibitionist, but besides that, it leaves the way open for the next fascist leader or bible thumping self proclaimed prophet to target people based on genes which may or may not influence sexuality, but which in any case are certainly not the last word in what turns a person on. Materialism in that sense is very wrong; you would idly throw a chair out if you don't like the colour, why not do the same to people since there is no real difference between the two?
Secondly, only a heartbeat ago in human history, radio waves and rocket ships were witchcraft and alchemy. What we actually know about ourselves and the nature of the universe in contrast to the whole that could possibly be known, is essentially nothing. You heard me right, we're only a hop skip and a jump away from the mud huts and hunter gatherer society, so lets not fool ourselves into thinking we have any sort of a grasp on reality. In the light of that, discounting the existence of the soul would be the highest form of folly.
Oh and by the way, if you think you have no soul, what the hell are you doing wasting your precious time on slashdot? You only have a finite number of seconds remaining; make the most of them, you big quantum bucket of dice you!
And nets, if you're badly stuck, netting with barbs at the thread crosses will slow down or incapacitate a good few zombies and let you make good your escape.
Actually I whiled away an hour or two devising a zombie combat kit there last month. Basically you need to protect yourself from bites, mob attacks, and not much else, and destroy the brain. Assuming a near infinite number of zombies, high tech solutions will usually fail, meaning ammo runs out and equipment jams.
The best weapons to defeat zombies in close combat would be punch knives of some kind (similar to these, but with the guard across the front or even a full hand fencing guard) although the jury is out as to whether one or two straight spikes for penetration and ease of withdrawal would be better than a maximum damage broad bladed knife, with guaranteed brain destruction.
The method of use for these blades would be straight punches, head or eye height, in and out. A single person could take out a zombie a second with a couple of these. I might also recommend an oil soaked sheath to keep it lubricated. Speaking of oil, mobility is a factor, so some sort of loose link mail of ceramic or other light material would be good. This could then be oiled up to provide less traction for the zombies' gripping hands. What we're really talking about here is human bites, so even stff leather could do the job fairly well.
Full face coverage would be important, and a locking mechanism under the jaw to prevent the zombies ripping off the helmet, with high shoulder neck guards to prevent them gripping under the neck.
Its very hard to completely destroy a brain inside a skull at any range without guns or crossbows of some sort, so instead I would advise letting the zombies come to you. Rig up a corridor with a hinged floor going to a quicklime pit or even a sheer Y drop, to trap the undead in the pit, then bait them in straight and close the door behind them. Both of these can be done manually and with very limited technical ability. Once trapped, either pour in more quicklime or spear the trapped zombies with a spike. Once completed, rinse and repeat, either disposing of the corpses over the wall or by cremation. At a rate of a thousand zombies a day, you can clear out a city of a half million undead in just over a year.
For forays and travelling, groups would of course be advisable, trained in back to back or three corner fighting methods, to prevent individuals being surrounded. For larger scale incursions, Roman legion tactics would be best, shields and short blades or punch knives.
Science is often anti-religion.
Science isn't anti anything. Science is the process by which we try to understand the universe. Calling it anti something or other displays a profound misconception of what it actually is.
A lot of scientific beliefs
There are no beliefs in science. There are theories and hypotheses which are tested and held to be the best model available until something else comes along.
You're doing the world of the rational more harm than good.
The U.S. survived a pretty terrible depression (indeed, people even call it the Great Depression) without resorting to fascism as Germany and Italy did.
The conditions for the economic turmoil in Germany were caused directly by extremely punitive conditions laid down by the allied powers after world war one in the treaty of Versailles, and indirectly from the damage caused by that war. America suffered neither of these conditions, and had no real enemy to rally against, unlike the German people. So lets save the holier than thou for another situation eh?
You fail at life. Please insert 25 cents to reincarnate and play again.
Hahah, ah this would be funnier if it wasn't so sad. Please see adjoining argument for your 0wnz0rship. Tnx.
"hey, fuck you all, we're going home"
Don't let the door hit you on the ass as you leave.
Best regards,
The rest of the world.
those wonderful bastions of free speech, the French,
Oh you mean the same French that gave you this? Man am I ever sick of americans that drank the kool aid of propaganda and turned all anti-French when they refused to support you in an illegal invasion. Its the herd mentality gone wild. And you can say what you like about that was then and this is now, but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
You can't continue punishing people for mistakes they haven't commited forever.
Indeed, couldn't have put it better myself. In fact the attitude of ongoing national punishment led directly and in no uncertain terms to world war two, just google for the treaty of Versailles and the Weimar republic.
You know, if all the root servers went down, it wouldn't be the end of the internet.
I know, thats my point. There's no need for all this public fuss at all. But to paraphrase Galileo, and yet it moves. Diplomats first, politicians second, are making an issue of it, and I'm telling you why. However, if they wanted to take full control of the internet, this would be the first step.
That's an interesting conspiracy theory. Here's another one:
Hahahahah, you linked to the DDOS attack on the root servers. As if any sovereign nation would need to resort to that. What nations do is what they are doing. You really shouldn't have posted AC, I'd have modded you up funny, if I hadn't already posted.
The UN endorsed the idea before the EU did.
To quote myself...
mentioned to various groups, including the EU
The EU is just one of the larger and more influential ones in the group.
Thus giving them near unlimited power over their citizens.
As opposed to what they have now...
not because shooting make-believe Nazis is "glorifying the Third Reich", but because you saw some swastikas while doing so.
In the game, the nazis were depicted as having vastly superior technology, far advanced from the tech of the time, and were tremendously strong. I don't honestly think the game should have been banned, but I do see the reasoning behind it.
Perhaps it's exactly the opposite.
Aaaaand this is why the rest of the world loves americans so much right now.
I'd trust the answers from a culture that has so far succeeded more than from one that has failed.
Ever hear the saying that I'd rather trust a man who has tried, failed and learned from his mistakes, than one who has never failed at all? The reason for this is that when things go wrong again (and they will), the guy who failed will know what to do next time round. The other guy won't. Not to point any fingers, but there does seem to be a strong theocratic tide surging through american politics right now...
There is very little risk of a new resurgence of Nazi power,
Actually neo-nazism is on the rise in Germany and Austria, partially due to the influx of immigrants from Turkey and the Middle East.
that risk is also increased by training the public to accept and even defend government restrictions on political speech.
So tell me, what is the US position on Al-Queada rallies within its borders? Is burning the flag still a crime? So much has been outlawed over there lately its hard to keep track. And lets say I release a reasoned, well thought out political pamphlet supporting the 9-11 attacks. What is your opinion on governmental censorship there?
So, lets talk genocide. No, really, pull up a chair and pour a cup. Genocide has happened many times in history, one conqueror or another going back to Rome and Egypt ordering the slaughter of all members of a particular tribe. Why is everyone so upset about the Nazis? Is it the scale of it? Not really... What about the very fact of it? Well it's bad, but no different than most other conquering races. So what then?
Its the way that modern industrial techniques and corporate efficiency were applied to murder by the MILLION relatively blameless people. Numbered, signed, stamped and sealed. Factories were built for the tidy slughter and killing of vast numbers of people, who only a few years before were happily productive members of society. Its the picture of Dorian Grey for Europe, the reminder that civilisation is only skin deep. And Europe will never, ever let an atrocity like that happen again within its control. These stark facts ecape many americans, who blindly burble about freedom of speech and constitutional rights, never ever really knowing the truth of what went on behind the concrete walls in rural Germany. Damn fucking right it's glorification is banned, you fuckwits.
I've seen this rubbish mirrored so often around here I have almost given up, but what the hell, I will make one concerted effort to put it away. I'll just point out the parts where you are wrong, and you can look up the relevant posts on earlier discussions on this subject yourself.
It was created with US tax money.
Incorrect.
It was created for Americans and Europe to protect themselves from attack.
Incorrect, as it is today.
we paid for it.
Incorrect.
So at the end of the day, we own it.
Incorrect.
I'm writing to my senator and demanding that we don't loose it.
Okay wow, this is wrong on several levels, technically not realistic, and unless you happen to own a major corporation, futile. And spelt wrong.
I would guess that would last about 18 hours. then they would all come back.
Given your ability to get the present wrong, my faith in your fortune telling abilities is less than solid. How does this stuff get modded up? Even true patriots (tm) must realise this is factually incorrect rhetoric from some boob that actually believes the freedom of speech crap for defence of the internet on the american news. Well probably not but I don't give a rats about moderation either way, despite which I have karma to burn and burn and burn...
Anyway, typically enough you have missed the point of these whole shenanigans. I posted this earlier, but I'll probably end up reposting it a few times. Sigh.
Here's whats really going on. The US probably, as a part of trade talks or talks over military matters, mentioned to various groups, including the EU (forget the UN, thats an arena, not an entity, its like blaming the whitehouse lawn for the actions of Bush), that their internet is looking mighty fragile, and whoops, wouldn't it be a shame if someone accidentally knocked it over, as a leverage tool. So, after going away and pondering their options, aforementioned governments tell the US to go hump a pineapple, and set up their own redundant system. That they are doing it publicly (no need to) should tell any observer all they need to know about what's really going on.
Don't think you get to see every power struggle displayed on the evening news. 99% of what counts is never seen, but may be readily deduced.
So what to stop the U.N. from using the internet as a way to control other countries?
Lets swap the N with an S there, and maybe you might see the problem that other countries have.
The role the US plays isn't anything a court cannot fix if the powers are ever abused.
Whose courts? And why should US courts have any say over what happens in other nations?
What would the main benefit of letting the UN or EU control it over the US?
Here's whats really going on. The US probably, as a part of trade talks or talks over military matters, mentioned to various groups, including the EU (forget the UN, thats an arena, not an entity, its like blaming the whitehouse lawn for the actions of Bush), that their internet is looking mighty fragile, and whoops, wouldn't it be a shame if someone accidentally knocked it over, as a leverage tool. So, after going away and pondering their options, aforementioned governments tell the US to go hump a pineapple, and set up their own redundant system. That they are doing it publicly (no need to) should tell any observer all they need to know about what's really going on.
Don't think you get to see every power struggle displayed on the evening news. 99% of what counts is never seen, but may be readily deduced.
Actually, I can't persuade myself that space is useful in any serious way for any kind of manufacturing.
I think space will be useful for manufacturing, and indeed will ultimately replace any kind of planet-based manufacturing. Think about it, to manufacture, you need two things, materials and energy, two things which are in abundance in space. If someone built a general purpose factory relatively close to the sun, to use that vast nuclear furnace, and supplied it with materials from asteroids, it opens the doors for macroengineering projects on a scale undreamt of, at a fairly reasonable cost.
Essentially infinite resources for the taking, and essentially infinite energy being pumped out around the clock? I don't see how that wouldn't pay for itself in the first year. Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate that there are significant issues that would have to be addressed first, such as how to get your manufactured goods to market, and setting up the mining and resource location infrastructure first, but to reach these goals we need more exploration and experimentation.
What this kind of station or stations would do very effectively would be to produce space based resources in enormous quantites. You want a fleet of spacecraft? We'll have that for you in 12 months, sir, and all it will cost is the lease on our robotic mining fleet, pay for station staff, and a bit on the top. Don't have a mining fleet? We'll churn one out in about three weeks. These are the kind of projects which are essentially impossible, now or ever, from earth.
Hell, we could construct a functioning death star if it took our fancy.